High Court of Gujarat
VALLABHBHAI MERVANBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Decided
- Disposal
- 56-DISPOSED AT ADMISSION STAGE
- Bench
- NIRZAR S DESAI
Holding
The Court allowed the petitioners to make a fresh representation and directed the respondent to decide it within three months, without examining the merits of the pension claim.
Summary
The petitioners, Vallabhbhai Mervanbhai Patel & ors., filed a special civil application seeking a one‑increment benefit, revision of pension and retirement benefits, and payment of arrears with interest, along with a direction for the respondents to decide a fresh representation within a stipulated time. The petitioners relied on a Supreme Court decision dated 20‑Feb‑2025 in Union of India & Another v. M. Siddaraj. The High Court, without examining the merits, permitted the petitioners to make the representation within two weeks and directed Respondent No.1 to decide the representation within three months, issuing a reasoned order if adverse. The court emphasized that the order is based on the Supreme Court precedent and that the merits of the pension claim were not adjudicated. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with the procedural directions.
Issues considered
- What entitlement, if any, do the petitioners have to a one‑increment benefit and revised pension under the applicable service rules?
- Whether the High Court can direct the respondents to decide a fresh representation without examining the merits of the underlying pension claim?
- Whether the procedural time‑frames prescribed by the Supreme Court precedent are applicable to the present petition?
Subjects
- pension revision
- increment benefit
- fresh representation
- procedural direction
- Supreme Court precedent
- High Court order
Judgment
C/SCA/6289/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6289 of 2025
=====================================================
VALLABHBHAI MERVANBHAI PATEL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR HB SINGH(2073) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR HENIL SHAH ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 16/03/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition, the petitioners
have prayed to direct the respondents to grant
benefit of one increment to the petitioners as per
their entitlement and consequentially, direct
respondent authorities to revise the pension and
other retirement benefits to the petitioners and make
the payment of arrears with interest. The petitioners
have also prayed to direct the respondents to decide
the fresh representation in the stipulated time for
one increment as per the order dated 20.2.2025 passed
Page 1 of 3
C/SCA/6289/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/03/2026
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. H. B.
Singh states, under instructions, that at this
juncture, as the issue is covered by the decision
dated 20.2.2025 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
delivered in Misc. Application Diary No.2400 of 2024
in Civil Appeal No.3933 of 2023 in the case of Union
of India and another v. M. Siddaraj and as the
petitioners also intend to make fresh representation
to the respondents, the respondents may be directed
to decide the said representation within some time
bound schedule, without examining the merits of the
matter.
3. In view of the above submission, without
examining the merits of the matter, the petitioners
are permitted to make representation to the
respondent authorities within a period of two weeks
from today and once the said representation is
received by the respondents, more particularly the
respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 is directed to
decide the said representation in accordance with law
Page 2 of 3
C/SCA/6289/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/03/2026
keeping in mind the decision dated 20.2.2025 of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Misc. Application
Diary No.2400 of 2024 in Civil Appeal No.3933 of 2023
in the case of Union of India and another v. M.
Siddaraj. In case if any adverse order is to be
passed by the respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 is
directed to pass a reasoned order and communicate the
said order to the petitioners by way of RPAD. The
respondent No.1 is also directed to decide the said
representation of the petitioners within a period of
three months from the date of receipt thereof.
4. With the aforesaid observation and
direction, the present petition stands disposed of.
It is made clear that this Court has not examined the
merits of the case.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
Pallavi
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PALLAVIBEN PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 16/03/2026 18:01:32
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.